@SophiaCai99 NEW: President Trump tells me: “I really don’t care” if Iran plays in the World Cup this summer. “I think Iran is a very badly defeated country. They’re running on fumes.”
Iran is also absent from a FIFA team planning event that is going on in Atlanta right now.
Surely that has to cost him the Fifa Peace Prize? Their whole bullcrap justification included how football brings people together!
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Considering how few monarchies are left in the world a surprising number of republics and now theocracies seem to still end up basically being monarchies.
Farage and the ex-tory retreads are literally blowing their own party to bits live on social media.
Best of luck Nige with the Trump suck.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 49m Going to say it again. Reform’s sycophantic cheerleading for Trump is counterproductive at the best of times. In the present environment it’s absolutely bonkers.
From the data in the thread header a far higher proportion of Reform voters (and Tory voters too) support the action, than the proportion of overall public that opposes it.
Yes the Greens, Lab and Lib Dems are wildly opposed, but Reform's target voters are not.
a) ceiling
b) most of them will have changed their minds when this whirlwind of shit starts to fuck their own lives up e.g. I can't afford to drive to my mother in laws for her birthday now as petrol is through the roof.
I may have my frustrations and disappointments about Starmer as a domestic politician, but internationally, I think he’s serious, responsible and trying to do his best for U.K. in unbelievably complex int’l environment, despite treasonous ghouls like Farage doing their best to undermine him.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
Good point.
Not sure about the numbers and fortunately stopped before it could reach the levels wanted by the Serbian leadership.
Trump and Netanyahu have been funnelling weapons to Kurdish volunteers in Western Iran for months. They’re expected to begin an armed uprising in days, ITV reports.
Interesting as hadn't the US recently stopped providing support for Kurds in Syria?
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
We have got nothing we can put in the skies that the Americans can't do more and better. We have Eurofighter Typhoons that can drop smallish bombs and kill tanks, soldiers in the field, and air defence. The American B52s can flatten towns the size of (say) Swindon. The horrible, embarrassing thing is that we are out of our depth here.
Is Swindon a very oddly specific example here, or is it just me?
I was going to say a large town/small city, but that was too vague so I picked one that was relatively well defined. Hence Swindon
Farage and the ex-tory retreads are literally blowing their own party to bits live on social media.
Best of luck Nige with the Trump suck.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 49m Going to say it again. Reform’s sycophantic cheerleading for Trump is counterproductive at the best of times. In the present environment it’s absolutely bonkers.
From the data in the thread header a far higher proportion of Reform voters (and Tory voters too) support the action, than the proportion of overall public that opposes it.
Yes the Greens, Lab and Lib Dems are wildly opposed, but Reform's target voters are not.
a) ceiling
b) most of them will have changed their minds when this whirlwind of shit starts to fuck their own lives up e.g. I can't afford to drive to my mother in laws for her birthday now as petrol is through the roof.
You're just projecting your own opposition though.
Longer-term, if the war is won and Iran is liberated then the whole world especially the Middle East will be far more secure and costs will be cheaper, so swings and roundabouts.
Farage and the ex-tory retreads are literally blowing their own party to bits live on social media.
Best of luck Nige with the Trump suck.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 49m Going to say it again. Reform’s sycophantic cheerleading for Trump is counterproductive at the best of times. In the present environment it’s absolutely bonkers.
From the data in the thread header a far higher proportion of Reform voters (and Tory voters too) support the action, than the proportion of overall public that opposes it.
Yes the Greens, Lab and Lib Dems are wildly opposed, but Reform's target voters are not.
We should send a platoon of Reform supporters to the front line. Would they be missed?
A good job this is happening in March at the end of the natural gas heating season rather than in November.
Still got far too much electricity generation from gas, ICEs etc etc. This is going to really hurt.
And DESNZ is funding new build CCGT and blue hydrogen capacity to lock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
(Actually a good idea because we'll need dispatchble electricity on still, dark days for decades to come. Paired with a strategic gas reserve built up over the summer for pennies, it will do the trick)
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
The massive imbalance in power between Israel and Gaza provides some of the justification for calling the killing of Gazans a genocide. What happened in Gaza was not so much a war as plain slaughter. As was the case at Srebrenica.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
We have got nothing we can put in the skies that the Americans can't do more and better. We have Eurofighter Typhoons that can drop smallish bombs and kill tanks, soldiers in the field, and air defence. The American B52s can flatten towns the size of (say) Swindon. The horrible, embarrassing thing is that we are out of our depth here.
Is Swindon a very oddly specific example here, or is it just me?
Swindon is a very good example of a town the size of Swindon.
It is the worst possible example of a town the size of Swindon.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
Well, let's see what the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) case concludes. (I know you have great respect for the process of international law and what the International Court of Justice will say.)
Simon Marks of LBC says it is a massive problem for the Nick Fuentes crowd that Israel is running US foreign policy. Anti-Semitism or the handing over of US sovereignty to a foreign power. Take your pick.
Simon Marks of LBC says it is a massive problem for the Nick Fuentes crowd that Israel is running US foreign policy. Anti-Semitism or the handing over of US sovereignty to a foreign power. Take your pick.
I'll leave the armchair warriors and their tumescent dreams of deep penetration, getting off on this sickening American orgy of violence. You'd think after Iraq, and Vietnam and all the other Imperialist follies people would be wise to this crap. Luckily the British public seems to be. I want no part of it.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
It's about intent, not numbers. I think 'genocide' is arguable for Israeli activities in Gaza, but I wouldn't use it myself as it's only arguable. Irrefutably Israel is guilty of systematic war crimes. That's the term I would use.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
The massive imbalance in power between Israel and Gaza provides some of the justification for calling the killing of Gazans a genocide. What happened in Gaza was not so much a war as plain slaughter. As was the case at Srebrenica.
No it wasn't, it was a war.
In Srebenica 30% of the Bosniak population was killed.
Were 30% of Gazans killed? I don't think so. Nothing like it.
And as we're talking about genocides, is what happened to the Germans of Eastern Europe - Sudetenland, Silesia, East Prussia etc - a genocide ?
If so it would be one the UK approved of and, with bombing and blockade, assisted in.
Both the British view of what happened and whether it constitutes a genocide are complicated. Churchill was supportive earlier on, but by the time it was happening, the UK was opposed, but impotent to do much about it. It was certainly ethnic cleansing, but maybe not genocide. (But something doesn't need to be genocide to still be a crime against humanity or a war crime.)
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
I'll leave the armchair warriors and their tumescent dreams of deep penetration, getting off on this sickening American orgy of violence. You'd think after Iraq, and Vietnam and all the other Imperialist follies people would be wise to this crap. Luckily the British public seems to be. I want no part of it.
Time and time and time and time again Trump and Vance promised their base no more foreign wars in sand dune swept places you have never heard of and care nothing for.
No more kids from Middletown, Ohio coming home with two legs missing for an elite, neocon war.
It is clear from Vance's extremely low profile that he thinks this is fucking madness and will end his POTUS dream.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
That's not the definition in the 1948 Geneva Convention Article II.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I can't tell whether you are being ironic !
It was already clear a day or two ago that the original Rubio justification for the attack ('they were imminently going to attack us with a nuclear weapoin' or some such) was more or less a fairy story, and the logic was tortured into a pretzel.
The last version I heard (perhaps version 6.2) was along the lines of "we launched a pre-emptive strike because we thought Israel would launch one anyway, so Iran might have attacked our bases, so we had to do one to prevent that potential for casualties." How would that play in Congress or a Court of Law?
Weren’t Spain and UK the only European allies President Bush had? Isn’t there a logical and political argument you deal with every foreign office decision, every war decision, on its own merits? To get to the right answer, you don’t bring any previous to the table. That the only way to get to the right answer on this question on Iran, is Iraq never happened, there’s not a single lesson to learn from it, because it never happened?
'I think there are no good options now for the Prime Minister
His initial caution certainly played well as far as we can tell with the British public and with his own party, but I am afraid now he doesn't look like a leader at all and he is in a very contradictory position'
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
I think Starmer was extremely wise to stay the hell out of this.
This. 100x this
Yep, I'm not a fan of Starmer despite thinking he's basically decent and competent, as he's not a leader and without any political savvy, but on this issue he is right. You don't go to war on a whim, or because any ally has forced your hand, you do it because you have a clear objective, a plan how to deliver that, and the means to do so. The objective keeps changing, and in some cases literally contradicts the US position of only weeks ago. The plan is non-existant, beyond playing Whac-A-Mole with Iranian missiles and drones. As to the means, if you actually want to install a new regime in Tehran, then even the US might find that impossible to do it if means marching in and propping up a new government.
You can see why apparently so many parts of the US government have apparently been saying "don't do it", it's just as shame that people still follow what the know to be crazy orders, and possibly illegal as well.
And as we're talking about genocides, is what happened to the Germans of Eastern Europe - Sudetenland, Silesia, East Prussia etc - a genocide ?
If so it would be one the UK approved of and, with bombing and blockade, assisted in.
Yes, one of many genocides that we historically did or at least turn a blind eye towards.
However the ethnic cleansing of the German populations referred to also happened before we adopted the 1951 convention against genocide. I do not think we have done one since, nor abetted one, except perhaps the one against the Chagos Islanders.
Simon Marks of LBC says it is a massive problem for the Nick Fuentes crowd that Israel is running US foreign policy. Anti-Semitism or the handing over of US sovereignty to a foreign power. Take your pick.
Fuentes now says he will vote Democrat in 2028
Nick Fuentes, Candance Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson.
Senator Richard Blumenthal after Iran briefing: “I just want to say I am more fearful than ever after this briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground.
“I am no more clear on what the priorities of the administration are going forward—whether it is destroying Iran’s nuclear capability, simply its missiles, regime change, or stopping terrorist activities.”
Right now in Tehran, regime forces are firing at Iranians shouting anti-regime slogans from their windows
Take a rest, you seem tired. You've far and away breached the Working Time Directive rules. Take legal action against your employes, they are working you too hard.
And as we're talking about genocides, is what happened to the Germans of Eastern Europe - Sudetenland, Silesia, East Prussia etc - a genocide ?
If so it would be one the UK approved of and, with bombing and blockade, assisted in.
Yes, one of many genocides that we historically did or at least turn a blind eye towards.
However the ethnic cleansing of the German populations referred to also happened before we adopted the 1951 convention against genocide. I do not think we have done one since, nor abetted one, except perhaps the one against the Chagos Islanders.
You could add Biafra and Cyprus to the list of where the UK did not cover itself with glory.
Though if the various sides of locals want to have their civil war there's rarely a good option.
@bondegezou it is incredibly false to quote a 3% figure as the figure for the genocide as the Court explicitly ruled that the genocide solely applied to Srebrenica. The 3% figure is deflated by counting places where genocide did not occur. In the area where genocide did occur it was over 30%.
Paragraphs 277 - 278: “The Court is not convinced that it has been conclusively established that genocide was committed in any of the municipalities other than Srebrenica.”
Paragraph 299: The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica… were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide.
What intent to destroy a group occurred in Gaza? None. It was not genocide.
Simon Marks of LBC says it is a massive problem for the Nick Fuentes crowd that Israel is running US foreign policy. Anti-Semitism or the handing over of US sovereignty to a foreign power. Take your pick.
Fuentes now says he will vote Democrat in 2028
Nick Fuentes, Candance Owens, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Tucker Carlson.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
The massive imbalance in power between Israel and Gaza provides some of the justification for calling the killing of Gazans a genocide. What happened in Gaza was not so much a war as plain slaughter.
What did the Palestinians gain from the 7th October attack?
Ethnic cleansing and genocide are two distinct things. One can become the other though, if done a certain way.
The most recent ethnic cleansing happened only a stone’s throw from Iran, in Nagorno Karabakh after the final victory of Azerbaijan over Armenia. It was pretty much a total ethnic cleansing, but done in the event with little civilian bloodshed. Not genocide, but definitely ethnic cleansing. The world looked on.
A century before, in the same region, those same Armenians were ethnically cleansed from their Anatolian homeland, but in such a way as to constitute genocide.
Add on the Greeks at the end of the Ottoman Empire, and Jews in the late 20th century, and the Anatolian peninsula can lay claim to be a strong contender for the ethnic cleansing capital of the world.
Remains to be seen what Erdogan’s response will be to this purported Kurdish insurgency in NW Iran (a region that historically also had a large Armenian population).
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
At Sebrenica, the killings of civilians were of “the round them up, truck them to a place, shoot them in the head and kick the bodies in a ditch” type.
I think Starmer was extremely wise to stay the hell out of this.
This. 100x this
Yep, I'm not a fan of Starmer despite thinking he's basically decent and competent, as he's not a leader and without any political savvy, but on this issue he is right. You don't go to war on a whim, or because any ally has forced your hand, you do it because you have a clear objective, a plan how to deliver that, and the means to do so. The objective keeps changing, and in some cases literally contradicts the US position of only weeks ago. The plan is non-existant, beyond playing Whac-A-Mole with Iranian missiles and drones. As to the means, if you actually want to install a new regime in Tehran, then even the US might find that impossible to do it if means marching in and propping up a new government.
You can see why apparently so many parts of the US government have apparently been saying "don't do it", it's just as shame that people still follow what the know to be crazy orders, and possibly illegal as well.
"The plan is non-existant"
Exactly.
Starmer has never been more right in his life.
Merz and co are going to bitterly regret all this.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
So, if some power killed 2 million UK civilians, that would be fine because it's only 3% of the population?
Genocide isn't only genocide if you hit an arbitrary target.
Genocide is wiping out a population, or attempting to do so.
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
That's not the definition in the 1948 Geneva Convention Article II.
Yes it is. It is defined as attempting to destroy, in whole or part, a group.
As happened in Srebrenica where 30% of the Bosniak population was killed and the other 70% were driven out.
As did not occur in Gaza, where there were some casualties of war but the Palestinian population was never destroyed nor even attempted to be destroyed.
'I think there are no good options now for the Prime Minister
His initial caution certainly played well as far as we can tell with the British public and with his own party, but I am afraid now he doesn't look like a leader at all and he is in a very contradictory position'
Eh?
He's keeping us out of a total shitshow of a disaster on a monumental historical scale.
And as we're talking about genocides, is what happened to the Germans of Eastern Europe - Sudetenland, Silesia, East Prussia etc - a genocide ?
If so it would be one the UK approved of and, with bombing and blockade, assisted in.
Yes, one of many genocides that we historically did or at least turn a blind eye towards.
However the ethnic cleansing of the German populations referred to also happened before we adopted the 1951 convention against genocide. I do not think we have done one since, nor abetted one, except perhaps the one against the Chagos Islanders.
Don’t give Reform another international agreement to repudiate!
He promised "'political risk insurance and guarantees' for the financial security of all maritime trade - especially petroleum - in the Gulf region...if it becomes necessary, the Navy will be tasked with escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz"
"Behind closed doors, U.S. Navy officials have already told tanker executives that there is presently no availability for an escort mission, Lloyds List reports - and they have provided no guarantees that there will be in the future."
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Starmer’s problem is his complete inability to articulate the position in a convincing way. It’s a problem of presentation. The policy itself seems sensible to me.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
At Sebrenica, the killings of civilians were of “the round them up, truck them to a place, shoot them in the head and kick the bodies in a ditch” type.
Absolutely.
It belittles what happened at Srebrenica to even utter it in the same sentence as Gaza. The two are not the same at all.
He promised "'political risk insurance and guarantees' for the financial security of all maritime trade - especially petroleum - in the Gulf region...if it becomes necessary, the Navy will be tasked with escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz"
"Behind closed doors, U.S. Navy officials have already told tanker executives that there is presently no availability for an escort mission, Lloyds List reports - and they have provided no guarantees that there will be in the future."
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Starmer’s problem is his complete inability to articulate the position in a convincing way. It’s a problem of presentation. The policy itself seems sensible to me.
Agreed. I am available for a very reasonable day rate.
Ethnic cleansing and genocide are two distinct things. One can become the other though, if done a certain way.
The most recent ethnic cleansing happened only a stone’s throw from Iran, in Nagorno Karabakh after the final victory of Azerbaijan over Armenia. It was pretty much a total ethnic cleansing, but done in the event with little civilian bloodshed. Not genocide, but definitely ethnic cleansing. The world looked on.
A century before, in the same region, those same Armenians were ethnically cleansed from their Anatolian homeland, but in such a way as to constitute genocide.
Add on the Greeks at the end of the Ottoman Empire, and Jews in the late 20th century, and the Anatolian peninsula can lay claim to be a strong contender for the ethnic cleansing capital of the world.
Remains to be seen what Erdogan’s response will be to this purported Kurdish insurgency in NW Iran (a region that historically also had a large Armenian population).
I'm not expert on legal definitions of genocide so of course I'm going to wade in... I get why some think what Israel has done in Gaza counts as genocide and it may be that on some definitions it is. Not for me though. I think Israel tried to get the hostages back, wanted to destroy Hamad and didn't care that much how many Gazans died in the crossfire. Now if you are a dead Gazan or a relative of one it probably doesn't matter one way or another. It's been pretty grim. I hope those who planned and carried out Oct 7th are happy with what they have done. Those that are left, of course.
Ethnic cleansing and genocide are two distinct things. One can become the other though, if done a certain way.
The most recent ethnic cleansing happened only a stone’s throw from Iran, in Nagorno Karabakh after the final victory of Azerbaijan over Armenia. It was pretty much a total ethnic cleansing, but done in the event with little civilian bloodshed. Not genocide, but definitely ethnic cleansing. The world looked on.
A century before, in the same region, those same Armenians were ethnically cleansed from their Anatolian homeland, but in such a way as to constitute genocide.
Add on the Greeks at the end of the Ottoman Empire, and Jews in the late 20th century, and the Anatolian peninsula can lay claim to be a strong contender for the ethnic cleansing capital of the world.
Remains to be seen what Erdogan’s response will be to this purported Kurdish insurgency in NW Iran (a region that historically also had a large Armenian population).
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
I suspect Trump wouldn’t have given it over even if we were involved. He wants to blame any mistakes tacitly on his allies.
I think Starmer was extremely wise to stay the hell out of this.
This. 100x this
Yep, I'm not a fan of Starmer despite thinking he's basically decent and competent, as he's not a leader and without any political savvy, but on this issue he is right. You don't go to war on a whim, or because any ally has forced your hand, you do it because you have a clear objective, a plan how to deliver that, and the means to do so. The objective keeps changing, and in some cases literally contradicts the US position of only weeks ago. The plan is non-existant, beyond playing Whac-A-Mole with Iranian missiles and drones. As to the means, if you actually want to install a new regime in Tehran, then even the US might find that impossible to do it if means marching in and propping up a new government.
You can see why apparently so many parts of the US government have apparently been saying "don't do it", it's just as shame that people still follow what the know to be crazy orders, and possibly illegal as well.
"The plan is non-existant"
Exactly.
Starmer has never been more right in his life.
Merz and co are going to bitterly regret all this.
A lot of this goes back to last year and the Twelve-Day War, when you had Trump claiming that the nuclear programme was "totally obliterated" when people who know what the hell they were talking out knew that the amount of HEU was small enough that it could have easily been removed, and if not removed could quite easily have survived the attacks for Iran to remove later. Iran is not stupid, they have long known that they have to protect their nuclear sites and material from aerial attack to the best of their abilities. So it was obvious that the job was not done, and there was more to come.
Ultimately Iran's HEU needs to be either surrendered, post regime change, or seized, and even if you can destroy it, by say dropping a nuke on a site*, it would be much better if you can get your hands on it to verify that the job has been done.
A good job this is happening in March at the end of the natural gas heating season rather than in November.
Still got far too much electricity generation from gas, ICEs etc etc. This is going to really hurt.
And DESNZ is funding new build CCGT and blue hydrogen capacity to lock in demand for natural gas for decades to come.
(Actually a good idea because we'll need dispatchble electricity on still, dark days for decades to come. Paired with a strategic gas reserve built up over the summer for pennies, it will do the trick)
Gas turbines used to be really cheap too, until AI came and sent prices (and lead times) through the roof.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
'I think there are no good options now for the Prime Minister
His initial caution certainly played well as far as we can tell with the British public and with his own party, but I am afraid now he doesn't look like a leader at all and he is in a very contradictory position'
Eh?
He's keeping us out of a total shitshow of a disaster on a monumental historical scale.
But he's not, as we are actively involved in the region and he gave permission for the use of the air bases thereby allowing the US to take offensive action
He has also deployed a frigate to Cyprus but much too late
The UK is as involved in this as are France and Germany and Ukraine
It is not as if he refused the air base use and didn't u turn
Most Reform members want to deport two of my kids, my parents in law and my brothers in law. So yes, Reform are a much bigger threat than the Greens.
My wife would be deported after living most of her life in this country and contributing to it. I'm not sure what we would do. I won't abandon her to her fate.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just watched Sir Richard Dalton, the former UK Ambassador to Iran destroy Nick Ferrari.
Ferrari was essentially creating a disingenuous ( bullshit) narrative and this guy caught him out. When Ferrari realised he was looking ridiculous he accused the Ambassador of "admiring the former Ayatollah 's regime". The Ambassador rather politely offloads both barrels and owns the Trumpian twat.
I think Starmer was extremely wise to stay the hell out of this.
This. 100x this
Yep, I'm not a fan of Starmer despite thinking he's basically decent and competent, as he's not a leader and without any political savvy, but on this issue he is right. You don't go to war on a whim, or because any ally has forced your hand, you do it because you have a clear objective, a plan how to deliver that, and the means to do so. The objective keeps changing, and in some cases literally contradicts the US position of only weeks ago. The plan is non-existant, beyond playing Whac-A-Mole with Iranian missiles and drones. As to the means, if you actually want to install a new regime in Tehran, then even the US might find that impossible to do it if means marching in and propping up a new government.
You can see why apparently so many parts of the US government have apparently been saying "don't do it", it's just as shame that people still follow what the know to be crazy orders, and possibly illegal as well.
"The plan is non-existant"
Exactly.
Starmer has never been more right in his life.
Merz and co are going to bitterly regret all this.
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s famous aphorism, "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything," means that while rigid, pre-set plans fail upon contact with reality, the process of preparing—studying, anticipating contingencies, and building expertise—is essential for adaptability. It emphasizes preparedness, agility, and the ability to adapt over strictly adhering to outdated, static documents.
The 'plan', such as there is one, seems to be kill the bad guys and then adapt to what follows.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Just because something is lawful, it doesn't mean that you have to do it. Conversely just because you don't want to do something, it doesn't mean that it's not lawful.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
I think Starmer was extremely wise to stay the hell out of this.
This. 100x this
Yep, I'm not a fan of Starmer despite thinking he's basically decent and competent, as he's not a leader and without any political savvy, but on this issue he is right. You don't go to war on a whim, or because any ally has forced your hand, you do it because you have a clear objective, a plan how to deliver that, and the means to do so. The objective keeps changing, and in some cases literally contradicts the US position of only weeks ago. The plan is non-existant, beyond playing Whac-A-Mole with Iranian missiles and drones. As to the means, if you actually want to install a new regime in Tehran, then even the US might find that impossible to do it if means marching in and propping up a new government.
You can see why apparently so many parts of the US government have apparently been saying "don't do it", it's just as shame that people still follow what the know to be crazy orders, and possibly illegal as well.
"The plan is non-existant"
Exactly.
Starmer has never been more right in his life.
Merz and co are going to bitterly regret all this.
Dwight D. Eisenhower’s famous aphorism, "Plans are worthless, but planning is everything," means that while rigid, pre-set plans fail upon contact with reality, the process of preparing—studying, anticipating contingencies, and building expertise—is essential for adaptability. It emphasizes preparedness, agility, and the ability to adapt over strictly adhering to outdated, static documents.
The 'plan', such as there is one, seems to be kill the bad guys and then adapt to what follows.
i really don’t understand those saying Starmer is in any kind of pickle.
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Yes a lot of bad faith actors are pretending his position is incoherent or stupid because they want to join the war.
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
Totally agree. Obviously there is some risk in it, not least because we will be acting in theatre without (we assume) full access to the American plan. But what else can he do?
He could have said to the Americans "we don't want to get involved directly, so our planes will be staying on the ground, but as our allies you are welcome to use the bases".
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
In international law, enabling someone else is the same as doing something yourself. If we thought it unlawful, we had to withhold the use of our bases. Had we thought it lawful, we probably should have been involved.
Fetishing international law above alliances, morals and doing the right thing. While also misunderstanding international law.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
Well I am sure the new Supreme Leader will be very willing to submit to Trump and Netanyahu's demands and plea for peace after they blew his father to bits and definitely won't be wanting a violent revenge, definitely not.
So unless the Americans and Israelis manage to blow him to bits too this war is on for the long haul
Trump and Netanyahu have been funnelling weapons to Kurdish volunteers in Western Iran for months. They’re expected to begin an armed uprising in days, ITV reports.
You just told us there was no plan.
That is like attempting to take over the UK and only having a plan for Northern Ireland.
Ridiculous. No one ever has a plan for Northern Ireland.
I have a plan for Northern Ireland. Reunification.
I agree, while respecting the right of the people of NI to choose. I genuinely think that the existence of NI makes it more difficult to tell a positive, inclusive, and cohesive story about the UK. When Starmer talked about his pride in seeing the flags of the constituent nations there was one that was conspicuous by it's absence...
The fact that you actually consider Starmer's gum flapping on the subject of national pride to be of some worth is deeply worrying.
I think stories of nationhood that nations tell themselves matter. The UK is actually in a state of flux that I don't think it has been in during my lifetime in that the national identities of the home nations have prominent political outlets. The Scottish Independence referendum laid the foundation for the UK as a nation state bound, explicitly, by consent. Ultimately the precedent is set that parts of the UK can leave if a majority of people within them choose to do so.
In that context, we can only cohere as a country if we are able to accommodate and respect all these national identities together, and that there is something (for lack of a better term) 'British' in Scotland, and England, and Wales and North- (you see my original point, surely?). If the UK can't manage that then we are done as a country, sooner or later.
Some observations after Day 4 of what we can pretty much define as a war.
Back on Saturday I posted that it would be interesting to see if Iranian missile volume petered out after 2-3 days. The stats suggest it has, by well over half on the ballistic missiles since volume on Day 1. The drone volume hasnt exactly been super high vis a vis the reported stocks to begin with, and its gone down too. Regular large simultaneous launches, a feature of the 12 Day War, are absent.
There are a few possible reasons but the battlefield is highly suppressive and Iran hasnt got effective central control back yet so it may be a case of can't rather than haven't.
For two days in a row I have mentioned the Iranian Kurds. The stories are there today that the US, right up to Trump himself have been talking to Kurdish leaders, though whether Trump is talking to the Iranian reps or their brothers across the border in Iraq is hard to know. On the ground, large swathes of Kurdish dominated areas in Iran have seen regime forces get hammered from the air or melt away. The border between Iran and Iraq's Kurdish zones have a thinned out Iranian presence. Whats in it for the Kurds? Some independence or autonomy? If they have half a head they'd be careful of any such promise. Just getting rid of the Mullahs might be a more realistic motivation but it may not. No news on the Azeris or the Arab in the south west.
There is a suggestion the US will make an official statement on actual measures to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. They have already announced that they will look to fill the risk insurance gap. I emphasize again the Iranians havent actually went full pelt to close it, launched a couple of missiles, threatened civilian traffic and that seems to have done it. Can the Iranians properly enforce it? Possibly but probably not. The shipping companies, however, dont want to try.
'I think there are no good options now for the Prime Minister
His initial caution certainly played well as far as we can tell with the British public and with his own party, but I am afraid now he doesn't look like a leader at all and he is in a very contradictory position'
Eh?
He's keeping us out of a total shitshow of a disaster on a monumental historical scale.
But he's not, as we are actively involved in the region and he gave permission for the use of the air bases thereby allowing the US to take offensive action
He has also deployed a frigate to Cyprus but much too late
The UK is as involved in this as are France and Germany and Ukraine
It is not as if he refused the air base use and didn't u turn
I agree with you. Starmer has fallen off his pin head he was dancing on. We are now at war with Iran. Only without all the credit we would have got if Starmer had done so from the start, like yourself and Kemi told him to.
I disagree with you on the ship. It’s a destroyer, an air defence destroyer. And it’s not gone to protect Cyprus, just the British bases. Cyprus friends, not Cyprus enemies like us, are protecting Cyprus already.
NEW: The CIA has been working to arm Kurdish forces with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising in Iran, multiple people familiar with the plan told CNN.
Iranian Kurdish opposition forces are expected to take part in a ground operation in Western Iran in the coming days and they expect US and Israeli support, a senior Iranian Kurdish official told CNN.
“THEY [IRAN] BASICALLY COULD HAVE BEEN DAYS OR WEEKS AWAY FROM A WEAPON IF THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THE EFFORT INTO IT. AND THEY HAD ALL THE CAPABILITY TO ACCOMPLISH THAT"
WH says that view aligns with the IAEA boss.
He just said this 👇
I have been very clear and consistent in my reports on Iran’s nuclear programme: while there has been no evidence of Iran building a nuclear bomb, its large stockpile of near-weapons grade enriched uranium and refusal to grant my inspectors full access are cause for serious concern. For these reasons, my previous reports indicate that unless and until Iran assists the @IAEAorg in resolving the outstanding safeguards issues, the Agency will not be in a position to provide assurance that Iran’s nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful.
Then it is SHAMEFUL UK are not actively bombing Iran nuclear programme also - as they were just days away from Nuclear Strikes on Israel, Saudi Arabia and the USA?
What an horrendous error of judgement from Starmer, the US must have shared this intel with his government over and over.
Kemi needs to lead with this at PMQs. Kemi is proven 100% correct now for her total trust in the US, Israeli and Saudi existential need to take this action, and how she would have backed and joined in from the off, not far too late.
I think you missed the word could and no evidence. This smacks of WMD and 45 minutes.
The paragraph is surely saying: yes sir! No one can argue with you they know for sure and can prove Iran weren’t extremely close to having and using the bomb.
What’s WMD and 45 minutes?
What’s WMD and 45 minutes? WMD means weapons of mass damage. In 2003 - when I was 6 - was a claim Iraq could hit UK with a dangerous missile in about 45 minutes, which the anti war brigade asked for more evidence, but the person who wrote the document died. There was claims because he changed his mind on it, he had been murdered, so Blair called an enquiry to get to the bottom of it. The bottom line from the enquiry was all those people, basically left wing people like Jeremy Corbyn, who opposed removing Sadam - who my Dad said was really called Madass but changed it to become a Bathurst - were the ones who got proved wrong and liars. The extremely left wing head of BBC was anti war, so government sacked him.
But this now is completely different. Trump has on his side the leader of IAEA, saying no one can argue with you, as they have zero evidence Iran definitely didn’t have tge bomb and about to use it on you and US allies in an illegal pre medicated strike.
Bollocks. Zero evidence he didn't have a bomb? What about evidence they did have a bomb?
What about in the middle of negotiations when Israel attacked?
Classic tactics of a genocidal regime we already know about. Ask the Gazans
Surely if Israel was so genocidal there would be no Gazans to ask ?
Perhaps we need to compare percentages of say Eastern European Jews in the 1940s, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the 1910s, Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 to Israel's actions in Gaza.
That is one of the stupidest arguments that get trotted out.
Nobody should be afraid of a few actual numbers.
And those numbers are rather inconvenient to those claiming that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Because what do the numbers say ?
The Rwandan, Armenian and Jewish genocides would be well over 50% deaths, possibly over 80% or even 90%.
Whereas even with the maximum death claims in Gaza its about 3%.
Which is bad but less than quite a few wars during the last century.
Now I'm sure that Israel would eagerly expel all the people from Gaza - which would also be bad but again not something we haven't seen before, Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023 for example.
For info my suggestion - not original other PBers have proposed it - would be for Israel to get Gaza but in return would have to give up its settlements in the West Bank.
But I cannot see either side agreeing to that.
What about the Bosnian genocide?
About 3% of the Bosniak population. Tens of thousands dead. But nothing to be bothered about according to Richard.
It was not 3% in Srebenica, it was about 30% killed with the other 70% forced to flee. It was genuine ethnic cleansing and an attempt to wipe out a population. Not a war triggered by atrocities like Hamas inflicted.
It was about 3% of the overall population. It was, yes, absolutely ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Because the genocide was in Srebenica, not everywhere. It was 30% in Srebenica.
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
Hold on, Bart. Genocide is defined in international law. It was a concept invented for international law. But you don’t believe international law exists
That is not the case, I have never said it does not exist, I have always said that like the pirate code it is more guidelines than actual rules - and where possible we should respect the guidelines but we should not be treating them as immutable rules that have to be followed.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
So, if these aren’t immutable rules that have to be followed, that means that genocide is OK sometimes? I mean, I recall you were actively advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza for a while, before thankfully stepping back from that position.
It is absolutely worth keeping a distinction between genocide and ethnic cleansing. I can not imagine the former ever being acceptable, but for moral rather than legal reasons. The latter might sometimes be, though it is certainly not ideal.
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals. Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
How can the King visit USA next month? Can FIFA World Cup go ahead with Iran due to play New Zealand on 15 June in Los Angeles? Will Spain still want to go to World Cup if it goes ahead? Trump’s astonishing outbursts of the last 24 hours & increasing unpredictability risks it all
Baron Foulkes of Cumnock should stick to posting about hearts. Trump has the peace prize so fifa will ensure it all goes ahead
Some observations after Day 4 of what we can pretty much define as a war.
Back on Saturday I posted that it would be interesting to see if Iranian missile volume petered out after 2-3 days. The stats suggest it has, by well over half on the ballistic missiles since volume on Day 1. The drone volume hasnt exactly been super high vis a vis the reported stocks to begin with, and its gone down too. Regular large simultaneous launches, a feature of the 12 Day War, are absent.
There are a few possible reasons but the battlefield is highly suppressive and Iran hasnt got effective central control back yet so it may be a case of can't rather than haven't.
For two days in a row I have mentioned the Iranian Kurds. The stories are there today that the US, right up to Trump himself have been talking to Kurdish leaders, though whether Trump is talking to the Iranian reps or their brothers across the border in Iraq is hard to know. On the ground, large swathes of Kurdish dominated areas in Iran have seen regime forces get hammered from the air or melt away. The border between Iran and Iraq's Kurdish zones have a thinned out Iranian presence. Whats in it for the Kurds? Some independence or autonomy? If they have half a head they'd be careful of any such promise. Just getting rid of the Mullahs might be a more realistic motivation but it may not. No news on the Azeris or the Arab in the south west.
There is a suggestion the US will make an official statement on actual measures to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. They have already announced that they will look to fill the risk insurance gap. I emphasize again the Iranians havent actually went full pelt to close it, launched a couple of missiles, threatened civilian traffic and that seems to have done it. Can the Iranians properly enforce it? Possibly but probably not. The shipping companies, however, dont want to try.
My fear is at least a chance Iran and its proxies result to terrorism as payback - people stepping out of boats on a beach and opening fire, bombs in party going tourist areas etc. cruise ships hijacked, Jews shot first, yanks second, brits third etc. years of waves of terror against Brits, yanks, westerners. How can you reassure me this is not heading towards that?
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick · 1h GBNews rarely get Labour MPs, but Tom Hayes was superb on GBNews tonight - well-informed, intelligent, fluent, logical, calm but firm, courteous and avoided cliches. Labour & GBNews should use Hayes a lot more. He's a better broadcaster than most senior ministers.
Some observations after Day 4 of what we can pretty much define as a war.
Back on Saturday I posted that it would be interesting to see if Iranian missile volume petered out after 2-3 days. The stats suggest it has, by well over half on the ballistic missiles since volume on Day 1. The drone volume hasnt exactly been super high vis a vis the reported stocks to begin with, and its gone down too. Regular large simultaneous launches, a feature of the 12 Day War, are absent.
There are a few possible reasons but the battlefield is highly suppressive and Iran hasnt got effective central control back yet so it may be a case of can't rather than haven't.
For two days in a row I have mentioned the Iranian Kurds. The stories are there today that the US, right up to Trump himself have been talking to Kurdish leaders, though whether Trump is talking to the Iranian reps or their brothers across the border in Iraq is hard to know. On the ground, large swathes of Kurdish dominated areas in Iran have seen regime forces get hammered from the air or melt away. The border between Iran and Iraq's Kurdish zones have a thinned out Iranian presence. Whats in it for the Kurds? Some independence or autonomy? If they have half a head they'd be careful of any such promise. Just getting rid of the Mullahs might be a more realistic motivation but it may not. No news on the Azeris or the Arab in the south west.
There is a suggestion the US will make an official statement on actual measures to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. They have already announced that they will look to fill the risk insurance gap. I emphasize again the Iranians havent actually went full pelt to close it, launched a couple of missiles, threatened civilian traffic and that seems to have done it. Can the Iranians properly enforce it? Possibly but probably not. The shipping companies, however, dont want to try.
My fear is at least a chance Iran and its proxies result to terrorism as payback - people stepping out of boats on a beach and opening fire, bombs in party going tourist areas etc. cruise ships hijacked, Jews shot first, yanks second, brits third etc. years of waves of terror against Brits, yanks, westerners. How can you reassure me this is not heading towards that?
That is like saying how can you reassure me it won't rain tomorrow, in an English winter.
All that shit already happens, today.
All that shit has happened for years.
All that shit is being encouraged by the Mullahs. Already.
Want to put an end to it? We need the defeat of terrorist regimes like Iran and ISIS.
Comments
Not people dying in war.
It demeans the word to use it as you do.
b) most of them will have changed their minds when this whirlwind of shit starts to fuck their own lives up e.g. I can't afford to drive to my mother in laws for her birthday now as petrol is through the roof.
I may have my frustrations and disappointments about Starmer as a domestic politician, but internationally, I think he’s serious, responsible and trying to do his best for U.K. in unbelievably complex int’l environment, despite treasonous ghouls like Farage doing their best to undermine him.
https://bsky.app/profile/alexhh.bsky.social/post/3mg6l7ecxuk2k
Not sure about the numbers and fortunately stopped before it could reach the levels wanted by the Serbian leadership.
Longer-term, if the war is won and Iran is liberated then the whole world especially the Middle East will be far more secure and costs will be cheaper, so swings and roundabouts.
If so it would be one the UK approved of and, with bombing and blockade, assisted in.
I really thought we’d learned from Iraq but apparently not.
Right now in Tehran, regime forces are firing at Iranians shouting anti-regime slogans from their windows
In Srebenica 30% of the Bosniak population was killed.
Were 30% of Gazans killed? I don't think so. Nothing like it.
Time and time and time and time again Trump and Vance promised their base no more foreign wars in sand dune swept places you have never heard of and care nothing for.
No more kids from Middletown, Ohio coming home with two legs missing for an elite, neocon war.
It is clear from Vance's extremely low profile that he thinks this is fucking madness and will end his POTUS dream.
Isn’t there a logical and political argument you deal with every foreign office decision, every war decision, on its own merits? To get to the right answer, you don’t bring any previous to the table. That the only way to get to the right answer on this question on Iran, is Iraq never happened, there’s not a single lesson to learn from it, because it never happened?
'I think there are no good options now for the Prime Minister
His initial caution certainly played well as far as we can tell with the British public and with his own party, but I am afraid now he doesn't look like a leader at all and he is in a very contradictory position'
Nothing comparable to Srebenica happened in Gaza, thank goodness. It demeans what happened there to even make the comparison.
You can see why apparently so many parts of the US government have apparently been saying "don't do it", it's just as shame that people still follow what the know to be crazy orders, and possibly illegal as well.
However the ethnic cleansing of the German populations referred to also happened before we adopted the 1951 convention against genocide. I do not think we have done one since, nor abetted one, except perhaps the one against the Chagos Islanders.
Quite a bunch Trump is losing.
Most Reform members want to deport two of my kids, my parents in law and my brothers in law. So yes, Reform are a much bigger threat than the Greens.
Senator Richard Blumenthal after Iran briefing: “I just want to say I am more fearful than ever after this briefing that we may be putting boots on the ground.
“I am no more clear on what the priorities of the administration are going forward—whether it is destroying Iran’s nuclear capability, simply its missiles, regime change, or stopping terrorist activities.”
"Is this the biggest rift between our two countries in 83 years?
"Or will it all be patched up next week?"
"We await the answer with some trepidatiion"
screwed up worried face......
Cut.....and print!
Though if the various sides of locals want to have their civil war there's rarely a good option.
https://www.icj-cij.org/case/91
Paragraphs 277 - 278: “The Court is not convinced that it has been conclusively established that genocide was committed in any of the municipalities other than Srebrenica.”
Paragraph 299: The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica… were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide.
What intent to destroy a group occurred in Gaza? None. It was not genocide.
The most recent ethnic cleansing happened only a stone’s throw from Iran, in Nagorno Karabakh after the final victory of Azerbaijan over Armenia. It was pretty much a total ethnic cleansing, but done in the event with little civilian bloodshed. Not genocide, but definitely ethnic cleansing. The world looked on.
A century before, in the same region, those same Armenians were ethnically cleansed from their Anatolian homeland, but in such a way as to constitute genocide.
Add on the Greeks at the end of the Ottoman Empire, and Jews in the late 20th century, and the Anatolian peninsula can lay claim to be a strong contender for the ethnic cleansing capital of the world.
Remains to be seen what Erdogan’s response will be to this purported Kurdish insurgency in NW Iran (a region that historically also had a large Armenian population).
He’s made the decisions I would have made (obviously the key determinant of being wise). He didn’t get dragged into the initial, irrational attack, but he’s used our forces to protect us and our allies.
Yes it would have been nice to have more forces pre-positioned to do it, but we can hardly blame him for defence cuts from before his ministry. Those cuts are why we no longer have ships in the gulf or more likelihood of a destroyer being at sea.
I am happy with a PM not leaping into someone else’s war on no notice, in order to pretend we were part of the decision to launch it.
Exactly.
Starmer has never been more right in his life.
Merz and co are going to bitterly regret all this.
As happened in Srebrenica where 30% of the Bosniak population was killed and the other 70% were driven out.
As did not occur in Gaza, where there were some casualties of war but the Palestinian population was never destroyed nor even attempted to be destroyed.
He's keeping us out of a total shitshow of a disaster on a monumental historical scale.
He promised "'political risk insurance and guarantees' for the financial security of all maritime trade - especially petroleum - in the Gulf region...if it becomes necessary, the Navy will be tasked with escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz"
"Behind closed doors, U.S. Navy officials have already told tanker executives that there is presently no availability for an escort mission, Lloyds List reports - and they have provided no guarantees that there will be in the future."
https://bsky.app/profile/jjschroden.bsky.social/post/3mg6trtvdqs25
It belittles what happened at Srebrenica to even utter it in the same sentence as Gaza. The two are not the same at all.
That should bring the Turks in......
This seems to be going well!
They should just say so and be done with it.
But his position is perfectly reasonable. All the British people will have heard is that we’ve not joined Trump’s war and Trump hates him.
Actually might do him some good with the voters.
I get why some think what Israel has done in Gaza counts as genocide and it may be that on some definitions it is. Not for me though. I think Israel tried to get the hostages back, wanted to destroy Hamad and didn't care that much how many Gazans died in the crossfire.
Now if you are a dead Gazan or a relative of one it probably doesn't matter one way or another. It's been pretty grim. I hope those who planned and carried out Oct 7th are happy with what they have done. Those that are left, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayfo
The Young Turks regime must have been among the most horrible ever.
The meaning of the word has always been an attempt to wipe out a population. Twisting it to mean anything else, belittles and devalues the meaning of the word.
Would be happier with either the Kurds or the Turks in Iran than the Mullahs.
Ultimately Iran's HEU needs to be either surrendered, post regime change, or seized, and even if you can destroy it, by say dropping a nuke on a site*, it would be much better if you can get your hands on it to verify that the job has been done.
* Don't do this, that's a very bad idea.
Instead he had to say not just no to joining in, but no to even using the bases.
He has also deployed a frigate to Cyprus but much too late
The UK is as involved in this as are France and Germany and Ukraine
It is not as if he refused the air base use and didn't u turn
Yikes
Ferrari was essentially creating a disingenuous ( bullshit) narrative and this guy caught him out. When Ferrari realised he was looking ridiculous he accused the Ambassador of "admiring the former Ayatollah 's regime". The Ambassador rather politely offloads both barrels and owns the Trumpian twat.
https://youtu.be/kU_cgJ1Tlgs?si=CGay-d9kBkQ5KxMS
The 'plan', such as there is one, seems to be kill the bad guys and then adapt to what follows.
I don't think it's hard to argue that military action against Iran has a lawful basis on the grounds of collective self-defence because of their role in sponsoring terror including 7/7, so the legal argument is a complete red herring. It's a political question, not a legal one.
International law is not some divine tablet handed down from Mount Sinai, it is guidelines that has nuance - and which led Carney and Albanese, both stern critics of Trump, to support the action.
The doctrine of self-defence exists within international law and is applicable here as a matter of fact - Iran is attacking Israel both directly and indirectly, so they and their allies like America are entitled to fight Iran. And pre-emptive self-defence is well-established in international law too. There is no need to wait for a mushroom cloud to appear above Tel Aviv before taking action.
So unless the Americans and Israelis manage to blow him to bits too this war is on for the long haul
In that context, we can only cohere as a country if we are able to accommodate and respect all these national identities together, and that there is something (for lack of a better term) 'British' in Scotland, and England, and Wales and North- (you see my original point, surely?). If the UK can't manage that then we are done as a country, sooner or later.
Back on Saturday I posted that it would be interesting to see if Iranian missile volume petered out after 2-3 days. The stats suggest it has, by well over half on the ballistic missiles since volume on Day 1. The drone volume hasnt exactly been super high vis a vis the reported stocks to begin with, and its gone down too. Regular large simultaneous launches, a feature of the 12 Day War, are absent.
There are a few possible reasons but the battlefield is highly suppressive and Iran hasnt got effective central control back yet so it may be a case of can't rather than haven't.
For two days in a row I have mentioned the Iranian Kurds. The stories are there today that the US, right up to Trump himself have been talking to Kurdish leaders, though whether Trump is talking to the Iranian reps or their brothers across the border in Iraq is hard to know. On the ground, large swathes of Kurdish dominated areas in Iran have seen regime forces get hammered from the air or melt away. The border between Iran and Iraq's Kurdish zones have a thinned out Iranian presence. Whats in it for the Kurds? Some independence or autonomy? If they have half a head they'd be careful of any such promise. Just getting rid of the Mullahs might be a more realistic motivation but it may not. No news on the Azeris or the Arab in the south west.
There is a suggestion the US will make an official statement on actual measures to keep the Straits of Hormuz open. They have already announced that they will look to fill the risk insurance gap. I emphasize again the Iranians havent actually went full pelt to close it, launched a couple of missiles, threatened civilian traffic and that seems to have done it. Can the Iranians properly enforce it? Possibly but probably not. The shipping companies, however, dont want to try.
I disagree with you on the ship. It’s a destroyer, an air defence destroyer. And it’s not gone to protect Cyprus, just the British bases. Cyprus friends, not Cyprus enemies like us, are protecting Cyprus already.
@NatashaBertrand
NEW: The CIA has been working to arm Kurdish forces with the aim of fomenting a popular uprising in Iran, multiple people familiar with the plan told CNN.
Iranian Kurdish opposition forces are expected to take part in a ground operation in Western Iran in the coming days and they expect US and Israeli support, a senior Iranian Kurdish official told CNN.
https://x.com/NatashaBertrand/status/2028952773899780585
What I actually said is if there is no other viable route to peace then it might be the least-worst option, and one well-trodden in the past century without outrage including just a couple of years ago (thankfully without much violence) as discussed earlier in this conversation.
Rounding people up, digging trenches, and shooting them in the back of the head - I can not see any circumstances where that is acceptable. Because of morals.
Peacefully seeing transfers of people when borders change - that might have a place.
Michael Crick
@MichaelLCrick
·
1h
GBNews rarely get Labour MPs, but Tom Hayes was superb on GBNews tonight - well-informed, intelligent, fluent, logical, calm but firm, courteous and avoided cliches. Labour & GBNews should use Hayes a lot more. He's a better broadcaster than most senior ministers.
https://x.com/MichaelLCrick/status/2028954880673550736
All that shit already happens, today.
All that shit has happened for years.
All that shit is being encouraged by the Mullahs. Already.
Want to put an end to it? We need the defeat of terrorist regimes like Iran and ISIS.